The Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson. I Can’t.

The Chicago Tribune endorsed Gary Johnson for president today.  They noted that they said in March they couldn’t/wouldn’t endorse Donald Trump.  The editorial today listed the reasons they couldn’t endorse Hillary Clinton: the spending, the lying, etc.  (For a complete list, see the editorial.) 

Instead of picking between what they call “such disappointing major party candidates,” the Tribune decided to endorse “a principled candidate.”  The Tribune likes Gary Johnson’s “small L-libertarianism, built on individual freedom and convinced that, on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, official Washington is clumsy, expensive and demonstrably unable to solve this nation’s problems.”  I do, too.

The problem, however, is Mr. Johnson’s foreign policy.  To call him an isolationist is probably understating the issue.  The Tribune says, however, that if we don’t get our deficit, etc., under control, we won’t be able to do much overseas.  I understand the point, but I think the risks overseas are too great to take the chance of Gary Johnson. 

A Vladimir Putin-led Russia trying to reclaim the Soviet Union.  A China trying to reclaim what it sees as its proper status of centuries ago.  Whether we like it or not, the United States is the only country that can lead the world.  We’re not perfect, but we are the best alternative when it comes to helping the world get to a better place. 

Unfortunately, our current president has not really agreed with that view.  He prefers to lead from behind – or do nothing at all.¹  Gary Johnson would continue President Obama’s policy of doing nothing – or at least as little as possible - overseas.  I understand that many people would rather not deal with problems outside of the United States.  We have our own issues, they say.  We can’t solve the world’s problems.  Let somebody else do it.  I understand, but I disagree. 

As it is said, from those to whom much is given, much is expected.  That is why I cannot support Gary Johnson.
----------
¹ President Obama’s apparent lack of effort to stop Congress from overriding his veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”) is a good example.  The theory of JASTA has some appeal.  Let people sue countries who are sponsors of terrorism.  Saudi Arabia seems to be a country that some people want to go after for 9/11, fifteen of the attackers having been Saudi.  But when you start to really think about it, the bill doesn’t work.  What if countries take the same theory against our people overseas, people in the armed forces?  Besides, who will really benefit from JASTA, the victims – or the lawyers?  JASTA was clearly a political vote.  I am not impressed by Republicans who voted for the bill, and for the override, when they should have known better.  But the Democrats were no better.  In the Senate, only Harry Reid voted against the override.  (When Harry Reid is the only good vote in the Senate, you know you are in trouble.)  The margins for override in the House and Senate were so large, it is clear President Obama didn’t try very hard to stop it.  Which is not atypical for his “leading from behind” approach to foreign policy.